posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 08:53 PM
Okay guys, so the consensus is;
On starting a chain reaction
A nuke going off over a boat load of nukes probably wouldn't start a chain reaction.
On short term damage to a power plant
This would depend on factors such as if the nuke was airburst, direct hit, yield, probably the surrounding terrain such as hills funnelling the
While the initial damage would spread more radioactive waste about. Not an earth shattering event.
On long term damage to a power plant
So, the consensus is that nuke power plants are robust things able to withstand an earthquake. And probably a conventional "terrorist" attack with
Now what about a nuke weapon detonating neara nuclear power plant? That might knock out enough internal machinery such as pumps, cooling towers, etc,
to cause a meltdown.
So, creating a Fukushima/Chernobyl event is a possibility.
The ocean currents and and winds would carry fallout to global locations as was seen with Fukushima irradiating the Pacific ocean, Canada and the
How many Chinese or Japanese reactors would NK need to blow up to strike a devestating fallout on US soil?
Shift to the middle East, Israel has reactors, sterilise Israel and where ever the winds blow.
Europe, lots of reactors there too.
What I am getting at is this; someone with half a dozen nukes can wage global nuclear war by proxy..
Especially if one has a fleet of 70+ submarines to deliver them to coastal nuclear reactors.
So, if one thinks in terms of conventional warfare, it would take a lot of nukes to destroy the world as we know it.
Thinking in terms of how few nukes it would take to destroy the world as we know it, maybe the number is within a small country's ability.
Creating ongoing nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl is a way to amplify devistation.
How many Chernobyls could Europe survive before falling into chaos?